Queen settles lawsuit against reporter who infiltrated Palace

By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor

12:01AM GMT 25 Nov 2003

The Queen agreed yesterday to settle her legal action against a reporter who obtained a job in the Royal Household after he and his newspaper promised not to disclose any more information he had obtained while working there.

Last Thursday, David Pannick, the Queen's counsel, obtained a temporary injunction after telling the court that Ryan Parry was "not so much a footman as a foot-in-the-door man".

As part of yesterday's settlement, Parry and the publishers of the Daily Mirror also agreed to pay £25,000 towards the Queen's legal costs - though no damages.

Lawyers thought the Queen would still be out of pocket after paying Mr Pannick and another QC, Jonathan Sumption, and City solicitors.

The Mirror, on the other hand, indicated that it had made more from increased sales and picture syndication than it was paying in costs. The newspaper published several pages of photographs over two days last week.

However, it has also promised to return any unpublished pictures and documents, not to syndicate any further material and to destroy any further unpublished stories.

Piers Morgan, editor of the Mirror, admitted that the newspaper "did not have much more material to publish which would have added greatly to our investigation in any case".

Announcing the settlement at the High Court yesterday, Mr Sumption said that, although this particular incident could now be treated as closed, "the Queen and the Royal Family are entitled to a proper measure of privacy in their personal lives".

He continued: "They are also entitled to trust those who serve in their households, without having to make the corrosive assumption that their confidence may be betrayed at any moment with impunity.

"The small minority of people who are not willing to respect even these principles of ordinary human courtesy must expect that recourse will be had to the courts whenever it is appropriate."

Richard Spearman, QC, for the Daily Mirror, said the newspaper had agreed to a permanent injunction to avoid "a long drawn-out court battle with Her Majesty".

He said the public did have the right to know about "shortcomings in security" at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. "It took a classic piece of investigative journalism to reveal that."

If Mr Parry had not concealed his true identity he would not have been offered the job as footman and such matters would never have been revealed, said Mr Spearman.

Marcus Partington, the Mirror Group's solicitor, said after the brief hearing: "The point of our story was to show the weaknesses in Royal security.

"We do not need to publish any further details to do that.

"That is why we have voluntarily submitted to an injunction today not to publish any further new material.

"The Palace must, by implication, have accepted that we acted in the public interest, as they have dropped their claim for damages for breach of confidence."

Mr Sumption had told Mr Justice Lightman that the general thrust of articles published in the Mirror last Wednesday and Thursday was that vetting processes for those who worked at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle were insufficient.

It was accepted that there was a public interest in disclosing such matters to the proper authorities and the Security Commission had been asking to review the vetting procedures.

"But the proper authorities do not include the Daily Mirror, and a large proportion of what Mr Parry wrote had nothing to do with lapses of security," he said.

"It was a highly objectionable invasion of privacy, devoid of any legitimate interest.

"It was devoted to repeating private conversations, publishing photographs, including pictures of the Royal Family's private living areas, and passing on personal details about the domestic life of the Queen and her family."

The judge said: "Plainly the resolution of this dispute is in the public interest and the terms are entirely proper."